← Back to the list of projects

City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination — City of Ann Arbor

← Back to messages

Jim's 5 Goals or Points

Posted by Jim Osborn on 21 Mar, 2014
Category: Category 1 - SSWWEP Questions and Presentations

During tonight's meeting, I made the following 5 Goals:

1) There should never be any sewage backups into any homes.

2) There should never be any sewage spills from the WWTP into the Huron River or from any of the sewer pipes that feed the WWTP.

3) The City of Ann Arbor should rectify any deficiencies in any FDDs previously mandated by the city.

4) 1-3 should be done as cost effectively as possible.

5) Use developer offset mitigation FDDs (DOMP, developer offset mitigation program) that are voluntary as a method of providing for future growth.

I believe that the FDDs worked, but were heavy handed. I would like to learn much more, but it seems that these installations that were mandated by the city and done by one of a select few contractors left a lot to be improved upon. While it was hard work, there was little oversight. Equipment selection, location, and especially the lack of a back-up system needs to be rectified. It appears that those who were offered a FDD by a developer, DOMP (developer offset mitigation program) received a much better deal in workmanship, equipment, and overall happiness and satisfaction. What can we learn from this and perhaps apply retroactivity to those 1800 or so who were forced to have a FDD? Should this be done? I think so.

What is not answered is this: Can FDDs be removed as a needed "tool?" If Ann Arbor were an island, then yes, but the problem is that federal funds paid for part of the WWTP (waste water treatment plant) and surrounding townships such as Scio have a contract to dump into it. Could this add too much to the WWTP flows? What about the sewage flows along the route to get to the WWTP? Both might be fine now, during a heavy rain, and even with the Scio Twp. additions, but not with the Scio Twp. additions during a heavy rain is falling . Does this mean that something else may need to be done?

By the term "cost effectively as possible", I mean that we must consider the expenses of things and not spend too much. BUT, It may mean spending $15 more on a better sump pump switch or $40 for a better check valve that is quiet, so the homeowner doesn't hear the pump all the time. It might even mean spending an extra $250 on a back up water driven system or $1000 to place the sump in a desirable art of the home and have a good trapdoor. This can be a win-win where the home has an unobtrusive sump and the city has not spent tens of millions pumping the sewage elsewhere.

If we have enough capacity at present, then we do not need any FDDs, just developer DOMPs. A carrot instead of a stick.

Comments

Jim Osborn on 21 Mar, 2014:

I would like Greg Marker to discuss what could be done to improve future and past FDDs, both those mandated by the city in the past and those a developer installed.
What things, sump placement, pump power, switch type, check valve type makes a sump pump noisy verse quiet?
What makes one sump keep the walls dryer than another? What about how the outside discharge it performed? 
Diameter of the curb drain pipe and the likelihood of it to freeze.
The size of the sump pit, if it is too small, the pump may cycle on and off too often and wear out. Part of its lid could be made solid so it could be walked on.
Other things that I've left out since I do not know?

Jim Osborn on 21 Mar, 2014:

I do not see any need to rank these goals, as all are achievable and are important.

The only real place to discuss could be number 5, which is how and what developers do. But remember, even if the City of Ann Arbor outlaws all growth, UM can and will still grow, (Edwards Brothers on State Street) and the surrounding townships can in some areas add to the system. So, which is more cost effective, goal 4, adding on to a plant that has no room, pumping it elsewhere to places that may not want it and who wants a pipe of S### through their backyard, or to allow developers to continue with a well run VOLUNTARY program?

The Footing Drain Disconnects is best, because it removes water from the peak flow, which happens during rain. We are not as concerned with AVERAGE flow, it is PEAK flows. Allowing a developer to change showerheads should not even be allowed as it does not help in the same manner.

We also need to look as the storm drain system, since if a street is flooded, it will saturate the ground and make the footing drains flow more, and more seeps into sewer line cracks, and down manholes, etc. But this is out of bounds...

Peter Houk on 22 Mar, 2014:

I like this list.  But I want to make sure that point #3 uses a broad definition for deficiency.  For example, a well executed and properly installed sump installation is still louder than the gravity system it replaced.  It still costs more to maintain.  For many mandatory FDD recipients, their sump is just not as good as the drain system that their neighbor still has.  

One other observation.  1 and 2 are not technically achievable.  All we can do is modify the system so that those events are VERY unlikely.  I agree with the sentiment in points 1 and 2, though.  These events should be so rare as to be almost never.

  

Jim Osborn on 23 Mar, 2014:


Jim Osborn on 23 Mar, 2014:

Well sail, Peter. I agree with all points.
Life is never fair, but we can only attempt move things in that direction. After all, in every neighborhood, someone is at the bottom of the hill and is the first to flood and someone else is at the top and never had a problem.